Quantum computing is not really a Bitcoin problem.

[kryptqnick]

I’m no computer expert, but my understanding is that several years from now or even a couple of decades, quantum computers will be able to crack Bitcoin private keys therefore jeopardizing security or our wallets.

I would contend that the security of Bitcoin and altcoins is not the only thing we should worry about. All the passwords we use every day for bank accounts, emails, etc. will be much easier to crack than a Bitcoin private key.  Those less secure passwords are the most vulnerable.

I think that as this becomes more realistic, there will be defenses put in place to protect all types of passwords, not just Bitcoin private keys.

Please share your thoughts and correct me where I’m wrong

Thanks

True indeed! If quantum computer becomes powerful enough to break bitcoin's security, it will be way easier for it to break banking network! Also it's very unlikely that quantum computer will fall in the hands of wrong people who would use it for such activities!

Big conglomerates like IBM and Google are investing behind it and they will have complete control over its usage! No way, these companies are going to destroy crypto encryption or banking networks. It's no way a threat to cryptos!

To be honest, I don't see the logic behind it. Or perhaps it's sarcasm and I did not get it... I believe that we'll be fine because quantum computing will never become advanced enough. And I agree that if quantum computing succeeds, it will be a big problem not only for cryptos but for security as we know it. If someone has such power, it can get in the hands of some pissed-off workers of those companies, or it can even be used by those companies to attack privacy just like they love to do it these days. Hopefully, measures against quantum computing will come before quantum computing can do much damage. There are hopes for that since D. Chaum is already working on quantum-resistant crypto.

[1715699865]

1715699865

[1715699865]

1715699865

[1715699865]

1715699865

[1715699865]

1715699865

[1715699865]

1715699865

[darkangel11]

Let's assume that you are right and they will be able to crack Bitcoin's encryption like it's nothing in a few decades. Why should it concern you? I'm in my 30s, even if it's 2 decades I'm going to be over 50. I could be dead by then! I'm also not going to hold forever. At some point I'm planning to start spending my Bitcoins so I can have some fun before I'm dead. I'm not collecting BTC for future generations.

Where one group of people thinks of ways to break security others are looking for ways to make it more secure. Maybe we'll have Bitcoin 2.0 by then?

[btcltceth]

Maybe we'll have Bitcoin 2.0 by then?

We will.

Satoshi Moving on to Other Things

So Bitcoin (BTC) was just the test run for the next Bitcoin

exactly

My opinion:
Satoshi Nakamoto is one person and will come back with the improved Bitcoin and with another pseudonym. He will not try to advertise or sell the new concept because he knows that the Bitcoin and crypto community will use it as it will be good.

what about those altcoins and tokens that we saw ? arent they the new bitcoins that you are talkin about  ? i think they are because btc was the first crypto coin that is introduced and we can say that it was a test to see if it will become a succesor but it did and after that , altcoin and tokens suddenly appeared but those devs are i think not satoshi or related to him   . they only get some idea on the concept of the orginal bitcoin and they make a little change on thier own coin .

All coins use the same technology, blockchain. But the blockchain as we know it today can't solve the above mentioned - speed, scalability - issues. The next developed decentralized coin would use a different technology without these issues.

Satoshi Nakamoto is one person and will come back with the improved Bitcoin and with another pseudonym. He will not try to advertise or sell the new concept because he knows that the Bitcoin and crypto community will use it as it will be good.

Bitcoin worked without advertising, selling. The new concept would make it the same way and would not work 10 years ago, as for the new concept a crypto community is needed, who will build a great stable network, what would be important for the new concept.

Satoshi will definitely return for Bitcoin, even though he has now disappeared for quite a long time. And the return of Sathosi, will increase the value of Bitcoin at a high enough price.

The price today is not important, if the concept is good. The concept will make the future's price.

It would be a shocker if Satoshi started working on the next Bitcoin.

I consider this idea though which might be possible but its hard to believe that he would go for another creation yet Bitcoin is already an exceptional innovative thing that had  been created.

Maybe he thought that the Bitcoin developers will find a scalability solution and he also tried with the current blockchain - not reached - and developed the next decentralized coin.

I also doubt the creation of Bitcoin 2.0. To do this, there is a huge amount of altcoins to develop the functionality of crypto, in turn, Bitcoin is the standard of P2P with maximum decentralization and security.

Not good enough. We can see the limitations of blockchain, it is a temporary solution. A new concept would be important.

[Voland.V]

Opinions on the dangers of quantum computing were divided. Let's see what experts, recognized cryptography geniuses think about this, and not ordinary bitcoin owners. Let's get started.

[magneto]

AFAIK the bitcoin network can just fork to a quantum resistant algorithm if and when this event happens. There is no apocolypse that a lot of people are stressing about - that is mostly FUD on the part of the media.

And if this happens, BTC will probably one of your least worries given that everything else in your daily life will get disrupted as well.

Also, quantum computing on even a commercial scale let alone individual scale is still very far away atm.

[Voland.V]

The following problems are observed in modern cryptography:

1) The limited number of working schemes [1], for public-key cryptography;

2) “Lack of prospects” [2] due to the development of new types of attacks and efficient computational processes (quantum computing), which means the future of cryptography in its modern form is very vague.

3) Potential unreliability of the basis [3]. Within the framework of the theory of computational complexity, the connection between complexly computable problems and their analogues has already been proved. This means that if it is hacked, at least one modern cryptosystem, many others also will not stand;

4) Constant "inflation" of the size of data blocks and keys [4], due to the progress of mathematics and computing. So, if at the time of creating the RSA cryptosystem, the size of numbers in 512 bits was considered sufficient, now at least 4 Kbits is recommended. Cryptographers find new tricks all the time, so we tend to use keys longer than is strictly necessary. Much less, but true for symmetric encryption algorithms;

5) The ability to quickly search will break some of the modern encryption algorithms. A light factorization of large numbers will break the RSA cryptosystem with any key length [5];

6) In essence, modern cryptography relies on the mathematical quirk that some things are easier to do than to cancel.

“Perhaps the whole idea of cryptography is based on number theory [6], as modern public key systems are a temporary phenomenon that exists due to gaps in the computation model” - Bruce Schneier.

So what do we have?
A temporary phenomenon that we trust?
Is there a way to gradual evolution or do you need a “knight's move”?

And one more quotation, like a flashlight, highlights the high probability of a dead-end path for the development of modern cryptography, and again Bruce Schneier: “... Yes, I know that the distribution of quantum keys is a potential replacement for public-key cryptography. But let's be honest: does anyone even believe that a system that requires specialized communication equipment and cables will be used for anything other than niche applications? The future is mobile, constantly powered computing devices. All security systems for them will be only software [7]. "

Bruce Schneier:
This is a strange future. Perhaps the whole idea of cryptography on number theory, like modern public key systems, is a temporary phenomenon that exists due to gaps in the computational model. Now that the model has expanded to include quantum computing, we can be where we were in the late 1970s and early 1980s: symmetric cryptography, cryptography based on codes, Merkle's signatures. It will be funny and ironic.

[Voland.V]

AFAIK the bitcoin network can just fork to a quantum resistant algorithm if and when this event happens. There is no apocolypse that a lot of people are stressing about - that is mostly FUD on the part of the media.

And if this happens, BTC will probably one of your least worries given that everything else in your daily life will get disrupted as well.

Also, quantum computing on even a commercial scale let alone individual scale is still very far away atm.

-----------------------------
Those who have a quantum computer can hack you. And not necessarily brute force attack, as everyone writes about it. There is a mathematical apparatus known only to cryptanalysts, which reduces the time of hacking by a huge number of times, relative to brute force attacks. If you plan to defend yourself with quantum cryptography, then you need to have a quantum computer for encryption. Read which systems claim, see what kind of resource they need, see what size keys they need to work, and it will become clear to you that your equipment is not suitable for these tasks. I think the problem is much more serious than it seems if you delve into the realities of today. A quantum computer attacks you, and you plan to defend yourself with old iron. The forces are not equal!

[Voland.V]

Cryptography after the Aliens Land, Bruce Schneier, IEEE Security & Privacy, September/October 2018.
Read at least the beginning of the article, it was written by all recognized genius in cryptography! I had the honor of being in correspondence with this person; he allowed me to use his quotes. This is a formality, but a fact. The fact that modern cryptography has a lot of problems is not my thoughts. Think carefully about what is written in this article.
https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2018/09/cryptography_after_t.html

[QUANTOOM]

AFAIK the bitcoin network can just fork to a quantum resistant algorithm if and when this event happens.

What will happen to the lost coins or coins without owners?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134441.0
https://bitslog.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/

[Voland.V]

The number of bitcoins lost due to the loss of keys or the death of the key keeper is huge and is growing every year. The theft of our confidential information, passwords - is growing.
I get new confirmations of my position that new passwordless and keyless systems will be in demand.
Quantum attacks are already possible, and quantum robust algorithms have not yet been determined. In addition to symmetric systems. But no symmetric encryption system without asymmetric will work.
So far, this problem remains without a visible solution.

[Voland.V]

I think the unsolved problem of phishing is more significant than quantum computing. We ourselves give our private key, not suspecting that they are attacking us.

[Voland.V]

And such a thought visits me, why do we think that the information about the quantum computer is correct? If they decided to tell us about it now, then this is no longer a secret. If we assume that organizations that hunt for other people's secrets are not indignant, then their progress has gone even further than we are informed about this. No one has canceled secrets in security issues at the state level. Rather, the opposite. The farther, the more "information itself" becomes a weapon, much more terrible than nuclear. Who knows, he is silent. Need some examples?

[Diirtmaan]

And such a thought visits me, why do we think that the information about the quantum computer is correct? If they decided to tell us about it now, then this is no longer a secret. If we assume that organizations that hunt for other people's secrets are not indignant, then their progress has gone even further than we are informed about this. No one has canceled secrets in security issues at the state level. Rather, the opposite. The farther, the more "information itself" becomes a weapon, much more terrible than nuclear. Who knows, he is silent. Need some examples?

Perhaps people are not yet fully aware of the power and capabilities of a quantum computer. We have not yet seen the operation of such a computer.
If we talk about Bitcoin, then this is not the worst problem of the coin, but the potential

[target]

I think the unsolved problem of phishing is more significant than quantum computing. We ourselves give our private key, not suspecting that they are attacking us.

Many developers had done it before to their bounty hunters by requiring them to send the private key inorder to claim or something. Bounty hunters comply as well, whatever the dev team says.

AFAIK the bitcoin network can just fork to a quantum resistant algorithm if and when this event happens. There is no apocolypse that a lot of people are stressing about - that is mostly FUD on the part of the media.

And if this happens, BTC will probably one of your least worries given that everything else in your daily life will get disrupted as well.

Also, quantum computing on even a commercial scale let alone individual scale is still very far away atm.

-----------------------------
Those who have a quantum computer can hack you. And not necessarily brute force attack, as everyone writes about it. There is a mathematical apparatus known only to cryptanalysts, which reduces the time of hacking by a huge number of times, relative to brute force attacks. If you plan to defend yourself with quantum cryptography, then you need to have a quantum computer for encryption. Read which systems claim, see what kind of resource they need, see what size keys they need to work, and it will become clear to you that your equipment is not suitable for these tasks. I think the problem is much more serious than it seems if you delve into the realities of today. A quantum computer attacks you, and you plan to defend yourself with old iron. The forces are not equal!

If they have the quantum computer, they probably attack satoshi's wallet the first chance they got. However it might be very difficult for them to do it since satoshi had never publicly done any transaction for the public key exposure.

[Linkkoin]

If they have the quantum computer, they probably attack satoshi's wallet the first chance they got. However it might be very difficult for them to do it since satoshi had never publicly done any transaction for the public key exposure.

What about other BTC, which were lost on early days, when HDD had been getting broken etc.?

[Tonteus]

Quantum computers are not as close to real life as you think.